John R. Pani lives in South Portland.

Development of the area in South Portland known as the Eastern Waterfront is controversial. I believe that wisely planned development would take derelict and largely  abandoned property and use it to significantly expand the tax base for South Portland. This would come at a time when city revenues are consistently inadequate. Wise waterfront development also would provide numerous benefits for the public. 

In contrast, there are people steadfastly opposed to development in that area.

Because the city’s proposed new comprehensive plan would leave open the possibility of some residential development there, that group is opposed to the plan. Often this opposition refers to “data” and “research” to support their view. I am skeptical of any analysis that comes from someone who knows their conclusion before they review the evidence. 

Of the specific objections to development that have been raised, the one that seems least well understood by the city is concern about benzene emissions (or other VOCs) from petroleum storage tanks along the Fore River. Benzene is a cancer risk, and it is said that new housing in the Eastern Waterfront would not be safe.  

I have several times confronted cancer in my immediate family, and I take data concerning cancer risk seriously. With that in mind, I wish to address the issue of cancer risk at the Eastern Waterfront property. 

In recent discussions of this property, there have been references to the finding that the rate of childhood cancer is higher in Maine than in other states. I have reviewed the available data, and I cannot find any indication that the problem is related to living in Cumberland County or to storage tank emissions (the highest rate is in Penobscot County). 

Regarding storage tanks, recent fenceline monitoring conducted as part of a state and federal testing program showed that the emissions from operations that are near to the Eastern Waterfront are below Maine state guidelines. In response, opponents of development say that the Maine emissions standard is too permissive; the Massachusetts  standard, the strictest in the nation, should be used instead.

Consider, however, that state  environmental laws are complex, and there is continuous variation among state cutoffs. Maine is less restrictive for VOC emissions than Massachusetts and New York. It has the same standards as Delaware and Pennsylvania, and it is more restrictive than Connecticut,  Minnesota, Texas and New Hampshire. 

One reason it is difficult to set a maximum for ambient benzene was mentioned by the state toxicologist at Maine CDC (City Council Workshop, October 2025): We encounter it every day in normal living. Significant sources of benzene include driving in a car, cooking on a gas stove (natural gas or propane), heating with wood, living near a highway or busy street, having an attached garage and storing cans of paint in the basement. It is possible that the average citizen in South Portland would breathe less benzene by standing on the Eastern Waterfront than by spending a day at home. 

It is essential in environmental planning to know how emissions standards are used. Massachusetts and New York primarily use them to control industrial emissions at the source. If ambient levels remain a concern for housing, new projects may use some of the many modern methods for limiting the concentration of environmental gases inside buildings (e.g., sub-surface depressurization, sealed structures and indoor filtration).

Both states have recently streamlined the environmental review process to encourage the  development of new housing. The Comprehensive Plan Committee for South Portland includes 14 residents (at any one time) who considered these issues carefully over several years. In the draft comprehensive plan, the committee has clearly stated several guidelines related to VOC  emissions that are as aware and as careful as those in any other state.

If the City Council is concerned about the health risks of VOC emissions, it should adopt the comprehensive plan.